Viruses lack any form of energy and are not alive according to this definition. Computer Viruses make slight changes in their code (mutate) but they are not alive. Computer viruses can mutate to overcome antiviral software but they are not considered to be alive anymore than what we call viruses that infect microorganisms or host cells.
viruses are not considered living because they cannot replicate without host cell.
Viruses lose life shortly after they reproduce and in males they're penis falls off and in female viruses their vaginas dry up
Viruses are not living organisms because they cannot replicate without using a host cell, and they do not respond to changes in the environment.
they cannot replicate on their own, although they do either contain DNA or RNA
They don't, according to current scientific proof.
Fossils are proof of organisms that lived long ago
Some say Comet Kachina is expected to arrive in November 2013, but there is no scientific proof of this.
They say that bee honey is good to eat at any time. However, there is no scientific proof of that fact.
Well, that's not possible. It is called a theory because it can't be definitively proved. For instance, we know gravity exists, so it is a scientific law, but there is no definite proof for evolution, so it is just a theory.
No, in fact there is water on the moon and that discovery may lead to scientist concluding that there are other organisms living in the galaxy.
No.
no but there is no proof that they aren't
No, there is no scientific proof. No one knows how to truly measure something like a ghost, and so there's no scientific way of knowing if they exist.
when the problem needs a scientific proof it becomes a scientific problem
Living Proof - Cher album - was created in 2000.
no there is not
Proof.
Test; proof; experiment.
There is no scientific proof of the yowie.
Uroboros -with the proof in the name of living...- was created on 2010-05-26.
proof,living proof,Your never over